Charlie Gard case

[LovelyBath77]

AIBU to feel the drama over this poor little boy is not helpful? I read the Pope and Donald Trump were suggesting they help- when several courts have agreed it is in his best interests to let the little boy die with dignity. I feel sorry for him as he may be in pain and it is unfair to add further to false hope for the parents as well. I also feel that many, many people has awful situations where babies die, sadly, for example stillbirths and other cases which are just un-heard and un-noticed and people have to deal with it, so why is there such a huge focus here.

whilst i agree with there are several other threads discussing this in great detail.

i agree with you*

The other threads are quite long now

But I agree op

Well the Catholic church is a great fan on earthly suffering, so no surprise there. They are in fact great opponents of mitochondrial DNA transplants in embryos - the only current preventative treatment for diseases such as Charlie's.

As for Trump, he just wants attention. Plenty of dying children who could be helped by access to existing treatments in the good old USA.

I think it's frightening in terms of what it may cause going forward. For courts to decide and the hospital be given permission to stop treating - all legal avenues exhausted - but now a stand off with random public offers of help? What a total nightmare. GOSH should have chosen a date and stuck to it.

This is just an awful hopeless mess.

I'm sorry, I haven't seen the other threads. Just noticed the papers are still full of pictures of the parents and the baby.

I completely agree with you.

It's all got completely out of control. Trump should be concentrating on the millions of children he's taken medical care away from. And as for the Pope there's lots of children in the world who, with a few quid, could have clean water and food but no one seems bothered about them.

i feel so sorry for the baby and the parents. the horrible things that have been said about them on places like here are..well horrible.
just sad all round

yes i agree Samcro i absolutley feel for the parents [and there have been some awful comments on other threads], and whilst objectivly i think the kindes thing would be for him to die peacefully if this was my child i have no idea how i would feel extremely sad case .

I feel for the parents too but also for ALL parents with young children going through something awful or dying young.

I don't know all the facts but from what I have read agree somewhat. I find it hard doctors are heartless and just want him to die.

I have been in an ethical position similar to this and had to make the horrific decision to let my lovely baby go. The guilt etc is horrific but I didn't want to inflict poor quality of life on anyone.

Quality of life is subjective and doctors can make mistakes. But if the child can never come off the machines I am not sure what his future would be like.

Very sad for the parents.

I think they should have been allowed to try the USA treatment when they raised the money rather then be dragged through the courts and adding to everybody's suffering. It may have been "unchartered territory" but everything was at some point.

At some point however sad, they do need to face facts and come to terms with it that he isn;t going to recover, once brain dead. It is terribly sad, but it's not all about them. It's about harm to a child, as well.

Podge have you read the judgements? They set out very clearly, in an easy to understand format, why the "treatment" in America is and was never an option.

Again if anyone who has the links can post them here it would be very helpful and I'd suggest everyone read them before commenting.

Here is GOSHs link to the court judgements

oh OP i was hoping that this was going to be a compassionate thread......yet there we go "its not all about them"

It may have been "unchartered territory" but everything was at some point.

That is very sadly not the whole story here. The US treatment is to stop/slow the genetic disease he has. But the disease has now caused irreversible brain damage. So even if the treatment was successful, and prolonged his life, even if by some miracle it took away the disease entirely, the brain damage would still be there. He would still be unable to see, hear, move, breathe himself, probably able to experience pain (and the life support measures are not comfortable) but unable to react to it.

That's why GOSH wouldn't give him the treatment themselves (as they originally considered). It's not about not giving him a chance - it's about what that chance would give him, even in a best-case scenario. If it couldn't improve his life, but could cause him pain and suffering, it's not fair to put him through it.

CW: Anencephaly, may be upsetting

I remember the Catholic Church debating the possibility that termination may be permitted in the case of a pregnancy where the fetus has been diagnosed with anencephaly.
There were suggestions that an anencephalic pregnancy could possibly be prematurely delivered, even when this would be considered abortion in other pregnancies.

This argument was based on the opinion that because of an anencephalic child's lack of cognitive function due to brain stem absence-and in view of the inevitable shortness of their lives, these infants may not technically covered by human rights if they aren't capable of conscious thought. Meaning you can't actually perform an abortion on someone that isn't technically 'alive'.

As unpalatable as this insinuation is, it gave me pause to think when I read about it. It is our brains that make us who we are.

Charlie Gard, while the two conditions are different, the prognosis is the same and for the same reasons.

Charlie's particular type of MDDS means he will never regain brain function due to cellular damage.
Both conditions are incompatible with life, both will be the cause of the patient's early death through the brain ceasing to perform basic autonomous functions.

Which makes me wonder, why the Catholic Church will consider one line of thought for one condition, and actually attempt to intervene internationally for another?

If absence of cognitive function suggests that the patient isn't technically alive, as has been suggested, then surely that applies across the board for other conditions, including Charlie Gard's?

Sincere apologies if this has upset anybody, I read this a couple of years ago and it shocked me.

Can you imagine the guilt this is gonna bring up for so many parents who listened to medical advice and allowed their kids to die.
These parents will always wonder if they had battled like Charlie's would their child be here now . I feel for these parents.
Im on the fence with all this coz part of me can understand they need to do this but then the other is asking if it's fair for this child to go thru all this ... only time will tell .

While I'm mostly sure that letting the boy die is the most sensible and kindest decision. If I was Charlie's mother I wouldn't be able to stop wondering about the Ashya King case.

Catholic teaching does allow for withdrawal of life support in some cases, and considers it separately from euthanasia.

While I'm mostly sure that letting the boy die is the most sensible and kindest decision. If I was Charlie's mother I wouldn't be able to stop wondering about the Ashya King case

I think that case was a bit different though. There was a dispute with the doctors in Southampton, but it was clear that the people offering proton beam therapy thought it could work.

The doctors in the US have said that their treatment will not work for Charlie.

So in the former case, there was a chance that the doctors in Southampton were denying the parents. In this case there is no chance, very sadly.

I am compassionate towards a child being kept alive and possibly in pain as his organs fail.

The Ashya King case is also a more complex and difficult case than the media story on it. The NHS felt that the treatment they were offering would be better for Ashya than the proton beam therapy the parents wanted and would mean a lower chance of his cancer returning. Hopefully it won't anyway and he'll be fine, but we'll never know.

What I don't understand in this case is, as another poster has said and GOSH say in that link, GOSH considered giving him the experimental treatment so why didn't they give it to him? He might be too far gone now, but why didn't he get the treatment when they first realised he was sick before his condition got so bad?
Sorry if I'm missing something here. Im trying to follow the case but my baby is the same age as Charlie so I can't help but get a bit emotional over it all.